Ooh, we haven't had a DP thread in a long time.

I am someone who has become much more liberal the past few years, but I still support the death penalty in principle, for a simple reason - I'm no remotely convinced that its a categorically different kind of punishment than life in prison. Unless someone can make the case that the DP is really that much worse than spending the rest of your life in a 6 by 8 box, I don't know why I really should be against it at all times.

DamnYankees: I'm not remotely convinced that its a categorically different kind of punishment than life in prison.

It lets the convict get off too easily. Let 'em rot in their 6 by 8 box for decades thinking about what they did and how they wasted their life instead of releasing them (so to phrase it) in a few years.

DamnYankees: Unless someone can make the case that the DP is really that much worse than spending the rest of your life in a 6 by 8 box, I don't know why I really should be against it at all times.

After someone is put to death, there is no chance to correct an erroneous conviction.

But that's not why I am against it.

I am against it because the state should not possess the power to execute its citizens. Every governmental power, every one, is abused. Likewise is every governmental power mismanaged at some point. You can be sure that the power to execute citizens is also abused and mismanaged.

damageddude: DamnYankees: I'm not remotely convinced that its a categorically different kind of punishment than life in prison.

It lets the convict get off too easily. Let 'em rot in their 6 by 8 box for decades thinking about what they did and how they wasted their life instead of releasing them (so to phrase it) in a few years.

So wouldn't you just support the death penalty for lesser crimes?

Whamdangler: After someone is put to death, there is no chance to correct an erroneous conviction.

You can't correct an erroneous 20 years in jail, either.

Whamdangler: I am against it because the state should not possess the power to execute its citizens. Every governmental power, every one, is abused. Likewise is every governmental power mismanaged at some point. You can be sure that the power to execute citizens is also abused and mismanaged.

But why is this so much worse than giving the state the power to throw you in a tiny cell for 60 years?

Didn't have time to RTFA, but I will say this... In Connecticut this past week, a man who spent 26 (or so) years in jail for a murder found out that DNA evidence tied someone else to the crime. This man has been in jail for all this time and he was innocent. Now, if he had been put to death, what recourse is there??? The state's going to say "My bad" and call it a day??

With the advancements being made in DNA technology, it wouldn't surprise me if see a lot more of this. One person executed in error is one person too many.

As long as we get to execute a senator every now and then, I'm all for it.

AuntofDogface: Didn't have time to RTFA, but I will say this... In Connecticut this past week, a man who spent 26 (or so) years in jail for a murder found out that DNA evidence tied someone else to the crime. This man has been in jail for all this time and he was innocent. Now, if he had been put to death, what recourse is there??? The state's going to say "My bad" and call it a day??

What is his current recourse? Does the state give him 26 years worth of free candy? There's no recourse at all.

DamnYankees: You can't correct an erroneous 20 years in jail, either.

You can not give that person back 20 years of their life, that is true. However, the state can make amends as best they can. And they can give the person back their freedom.

I came to say what Whamdangler said.

*kicks dirt and saunters off*

I'm liberal as all hell and I don't think some people should be allowed to live. The death penalty should be reserved for severe crimes only though, like multiple murders, people with a prolonged history of abuse, that kind of thing.

Whamdangler: However, the state can make amends as best they can.

I guess you could say that about the death penalty also. Little solace.

Whamdangler: And they can give the person back their freedom.

Well, sure, somewhat. That's why the DP is a harsher penalty. All I'm saying is I don't think the gap in horror between the two punishments is nearly as vast enough to be worthy of an outright ban on the harsher one.

DamnYankees: But why is this so much worse than giving the state the power to throw you in a tiny cell for 60 years?

The best answer I can give you is that there is no chance, none, nada, zip, at any reconciliation if the person is ultimately found to be innocent. THAT is why it's worse. You can keep asking "but why" if you don't accept my answer, but that's all I can offer. That's my opinion.

DamnYankees: AuntofDogface: Didn't have time to RTFA, but I will say this... In Connecticut this past week, a man who spent 26 (or so) years in jail for a murder found out that DNA evidence tied someone else to the crime. This man has been in jail for all this time and he was innocent. Now, if he had been put to death, what recourse is there??? The state's going to say "My bad" and call it a day??

What is his current recourse? Does the state give him 26 years worth of free candy? There's no recourse at all.

At least he's alive... Same thing happened a couple of years ago. The state gave him a buttload of money and now he's going around talking to inner city kids.

Time to go home...

Whamdangler: The best answer I can give you is that there is no chance, none, nada, zip, at any reconciliation if the person is ultimately found to be innocent. THAT is why it's worse. You can keep asking "but why" if you don't accept my answer, but that's all I can offer. That's my opinion.

I admit its worse. That's why its a harsher punishment. But isn't life in prison with no parole also really, really, really bad? Why don't people protest that? After all, some countries have actually banned it for the same reasons they ban the death penalty.

DamnYankees: What is his current recourse? Does the state give him 26 years worth of free candy? There's no recourse at all.

No, but there's "I'm still alive, now let's head to a strip joint."

That's better than being wormfood for 26 years.

Blues_X: That's better than being wormfood for 26 years.

Sure. Like I said, its worse.

DamnYankees: I admit its worse. That's why its a harsher punishment. But isn't life in prison with no parole also really, really, really bad? Why don't people protest that? After all, some countries have actually banned it for the same reasons they ban the death penalty.

I can't speak for other countries. Yes, life in prison without parole is "bad." It's a punishment and it should be bad. I am not anti-punishment. I am anti-death-penalty.

Whamdangler: . I am not anti-punishment. I am anti-death-penalty.

That's fine. I don't think you're 'wrong' for being against the death penalty, because I think it basically comes down to a gut feeling of what you think is right or wrong. But I think the 'arguments' against the punishment are rather weak.

Whamdangler: The best answer I can give you is that there is no chance, none, nada, zip, at any reconciliation if the person is ultimately found to be innocent. THAT is why it's worse. You can keep asking "but why" if you don't accept my answer, but that's all I can offer. That's my opinion.

Yes, this is true. Which is why I only want to apply it after repeated offenses, not single offenses. Start with prison, you have to be dedicated to get a death penalty.

I'm not conflicted. It just isn't used often enough or quick enough to be a real deterrent.

I'm not morally opposed to the death penalty. Some folks just need killing, but somebody needs to be held accountable if they're later proved innocent.

I say lay the guilt on the prosecutor. They know the case better than anybody. If they push for the death penalty, and they get it, and the suspect is later found innocent they do the rest of their life in prison. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

If a suspect is later found innocent they get $1 million for every year they spent in prison. Sure, we can't give them back those wasted years, but we can give them enough money to put their life back on track and make up for lost time. Spend 20 years in the clink while innocent? Here's $20 million, have fun with that whole "not having to work" thing for the rest of your life.

i'm not really an advocate for the death penalty, but i have to admit that there is a point where a crime reaches the scale that it certainly justifies simply putting that person to death. i personally would set that bar pretty high. like, serial killer, genocidal dictator, etc. and the burden of proof to reach that bar should have to be pretty high.

Cog: I'm not conflicted. It just isn't used often enough or quick enough to be a real deterrent.

i don't view it as a deterrent, i view it as seeking satisfaction for an aggrieved society.

Cog: I'm not conflicted. It just isn't used often enough or quick enough to be a real deterrent.

If life in a 6x8 box without parole isn't a deterrent, the death penalty will not be a deterrent.

If a all the evidence points toward one perp, and the perp readily admits it, I say kill 'em.

But the truth is, we have a system of justice that incentivizes the prosecution to find someone they can pin the crime on, not to find out who actually did it.

It's too easy to convict someone based on flimsy evidence like eye-witness accounts - which are almost never accurate.

Go watch the documentary "thin blue line" for a narrative of how some guy with no prior record can show up in a new town, find a job, meet a new friend, and get convicted for the murder of a cop he never met and sentenced to death.

I'm really liberal, but firmly believe in the death penalty- not as a deterrent, but because there are some actions that negate your right to breathe.

That said, it isn't applied fairly in this country at all- the percentages of poor and minority people on death row is disproportionately high so I can't agree with it. We need to completely overhaul the judicial system before it can really be effective.

In texas, no less.

And good old Errol basically got a confession out of the guy who actually did it, too.

Asa Phelps: Go watch the documentary "thin blue line" for a narrative of how some guy with no prior record can show up in a new town, find a job, meet a new friend, and get convicted for the murder of a cop he never met and sentenced to death.

Asa Phelps: In texas, no less.

And good old Errol basically got a confession out of the guy who actually did it, too.

One of my favorite documentaries.

Whamdangler: I am against it because the state should not possess the power to execute its citizens.

THIS!

This has always been my argument against the death penalty. NOBODY has the right to take a life, ESPECIALLY the State.

I lean against the death penalty, but am in favor of automatic life-without-parole sentences if you're found guilty of rape and/or murder (barring your conviction being overturned for a really good reason). And none of that British crap where we give prisoners TV and yummy food. Bread, water, and sit in a prison cell to think about the evil you've done.

I'm A-OK with the ultimate punishment. You take a life, your life is taken. Yes, Ghandi and eye for an eye and all that jazz. Don't buy it.

Basically, you either think that the government (technically the community at large) has the right to take life in some well defined circumstances, or you believe that there is no excuse under any circumstances.

I always believed that it was the right of our society, and thought that there was a benefit to the deterrance of crime and the feeling of justice to the victim's family and friends, but never really SUPPORTED it.

Then I had a friend brutally murdered, and the killers are now facing the death penalty. I cannot say strongly enough how good it makes me feel that they await that fate.

I can now understand why public lynchings were the style throughout much of our countries history, and wish that the process would be made more public again in the future.

/Don't support it as a blanket punishment for murder, but most murderers I would be fine with.
//I think the death penalty would be preferable to life in prison anyway.
///What is the point of "rehabilitating" someone who is never getting out?

I'm not confused at all: Rapists, child molesters, 1st degree murders, and kidnappers all get executed. Life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Then I had a friend brutally murdered, and the killers are now facing the death penalty. I cannot say strongly enough how good it makes me feel that they await that fate.

Bingo. I would never take away the right of the victim's family to have the same thing done to the criminal as was done to the victim.

smooshie: I lean against the death penalty, but am in favor of automatic life-without-parole sentences if you're found guilty of rape and/or murder (barring your conviction being overturned for a really good reason). And none of that British crap where we give prisoners TV and yummy food. Bread, water, and sit in a prison cell to think about the evil you've done.

I don't think it matters whether it's a 6 X 8 cell or a mansion in the English countryside. Arrest is arrest. Not being able to do what you want or go where you want under your own free will is psychological prison. Augusto Pinochet almost went nuts under house arrest in England simply because he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. And he had it nice.

I don't think things like cable TV and weight rooms make prison a better place. They're more a distraction to help prison guards keep order, than a luxury, IMO.

2wolves: Life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment in my opinion.

Why? It's not unusual if it replaces the death penalty, and why would it be any more cruel than execution?

ecmoRandomNumbers: I don't think it matters whether it's a 6 X 8 cell or a mansion in the English countryside. Arrest is arrest. Not being able to do what you want or go where you want under your own free will is psychological prison. Augusto Pinochet almost went nuts under house arrest in England simply because he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. And he had it nice.

So if I were to kill someone (taking away their free will for all eternity), you'd be OK if I were sent to some cushy prison where I could watch TV and play video games all day long? I don't think that's fair at all.

smooshie: ecmoRandomNumbers: I don't think it matters whether it's a 6 X 8 cell or a mansion in the English countryside. Arrest is arrest. Not being able to do what you want or go where you want under your own free will is psychological prison. Augusto Pinochet almost went nuts under house arrest in England simply because he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. And he had it nice.

So if I were to kill someone (taking away their free will for all eternity), you'd be OK if I were sent to some cushy prison where I could watch TV and play video games all day long? I don't think that's fair at all.

I didn't say I'd be OK with something like that. Losing a family member to a murder sucks. (My family is in the middle of that right now.) But I would take comfort in knowing that your eventual exit from that place would involve a body bag and that you'll never be part of our society again. I don't care what you do all day while inside. I might even send you a video game as a christmas present just to remind you how farked you are.

I guess you have to decide if you feel that killing another person is wrong because it's wrong or because you don't want it to happen to you. The death penalty is certainly a satisfying sort of revenge (for lack of a better word).

If some visitor came to earth I'm not sure I want to be the one to explain that we have professionals dedicated to the process of killing other members of our society. "See, that guy is a bad person so we had our doctors come up with a system to hook him up to various chemicals after we haul him into a room in chains and open a curtain so others can watch... we're ok though". Sorry, I can't sell that very convincingly.

Mordant: Sorry, I can't sell that very convincingly.

But you could sell "we have professionals dedicated to throwing humans in little cages like animals, feeding them to keep them alive, and letting them whither away for 60 years"?

damageddude: DamnYankees: I'm not remotely convinced that its a categorically different kind of punishment than life in prison.

It lets the convict get off too easily. Let 'em rot in their 6 by 8 box for decades thinking about what they did and how they wasted their life instead of releasing them (so to phrase it) in a few years.

Then have life in prison for murder, and the death penalty for attempted murder.

"Look, we have certain people who we simply can't have on the loose in our society and we don't know what else to do with them. They're in these places. Any suggestions ?".

Not much better, but I can temporarily put off the final answer which is pretty much the way I get through the rest of my life.

Mordant: "Look, we have certain people who we simply can't have on the loose in our society and we don't know what else to do with them. They're in these places. Any suggestions ?".

Not much better, but I can temporarily put off the final answer which is pretty much the way I get through the rest of my life.

This would be true if the entire point of the criminal justice system was to protect people from dangerous criminals. Your justification would seem to argue for the pardoning of everyone we agree isn't dangerous.

smooshie:

Why? It's not unusual if it replaces the death penalty, and why would it be any more cruel than execution?

Ever been confined to a small space and been at the total mercy of a bureaucracy?

Whamdangler: DamnYankees: Unless someone can make the case that the DP is really that much worse than spending the rest of your life in a 6 by 8 box, I don't know why I really should be against it at all times.

After someone is put to death, there is no chance to correct an erroneous conviction.

This.

I support the death penalty, but the law enforcement and justice systems in some places is flawed, corrupt, and/or compromised by local prejudices.

I have no qualms about putting down those we deem guilty of the worst crimes and beyond rehabilitation. I have huge qualms about incorrectly executing someone who doesn't actually meet the criteria we set for the death penalty. Enough so that I would rather erroneously allow the worst of the worst to rot for life, rather than execute the wrong citizen.

Someone who wrongly spent 20 years in the slam can't be made whole. But if the mistake is discovered and they are freed, you go right ahead and ask them if they wish they'd just been executed.

BuckTurgidson: Someone who wrongly spent 20 years in the slam can't be made whole. But if the mistake is discovered and they are freed, you go right ahead and ask them if they wish they'd just been executed.

Well, my argument isn't that its better to be executed. But I don't see it as worse *enough* that we need to outlaw it across the board. Especially when you have cases where there literally is no other punishment you can give the person - eg murder in prison when you are already sentenced to life without parole.

DamnYankees: So wouldn't you just support the death penalty for lesser crimes?

Why would you think I supported the death penalty for a non-capital offense? That's taking one hell of a leap.

I don't support it, moral issues aside, because (1) you can't fix that mistake if the convict turns out to be not guilty, (2) it's more expensive with all the legal requirements & (3) to me prison is worse.

I would support the death penalty for any crime where the sentence is greater than 20 years. In fact, I think it should be automatic if that is the case, with 1 attempt at appeal.

I don't think life in prison is either economical nor moral. If you have committed such acts that offend the rest of society that much then you don't deserve degradation in the prison system, but a peaceful death. Extended sentences are cruel and unusual, in my opinion.

/Now, I also don't think that drug offenses should be punishable at all, so that would also be a stipulation.

/Those are my thoughts, feel free to get mad at me! ;-)

damageddude: (1) you can't fix that mistake if the convict turns out to be not guilty

You can't fix any punishment you give out, unless you think financial restitution is really a 'fix'. I think what you mean to say is the person will still have some life left over.

damageddude: (2) it's more expensive with all the legal requirements

As it should be. When you have a harsh penalty, you should be more careful in its application.

damageddude: (3) to me prison is worse.

How can this be squared wit your first reason?